The stuff which is highlighted in black is what he said and the stuff which looks normal is mine.
Most Muslim societies are pretty conservative. I am okay with refugees but they should leave once the situation has stabilised. Britain had millions of refugees in WWII, they left after the war. That doesn't happen as much now.
Yeah not a problem - bring me your tired and huddle masses. Great nations were built on those words. Racism, retrenchment, and fear are not the way.
In fact, I have friends and relatives who have gotten into Europe pretending to be refugees. It's more common and easier than you think. You just bribe some third world official to write a letter for you about being a political refugee lol [Or about how thugs will get you if you go back to your country].
Then you can bring a friend over while pretending to be married to them temporarily. You can of course bring over your children too. These things do happen pretty frequently.
What you are advocating for is putting the interests of foreigners over those of citizens [by any other name]. Why would anyone be loyal to such a unit in the long term? Won't this lead to everyone taking what they can take?
Only if you believe in the essential selfishness of your fellow humans. If you believe that humans are on the whole good people, who are happy to obey rules and laws when they perceive the system to be fair - well then refugees are a boon to your society.
People are more selfless within their own group because they have more similar interests, tastes, culture etc... Dissimilar groups will get along as long as there is money but in harsh times it is harder to get them to get along. Harsh times always come sooner or later.
Foreigners is a dirty word - I am pro-human, so boundaries are not really relevant to me
Europe is a continent of laws and rules. Bribing, cheating, and lying only get you so far. Eventually the rooster will come home to roost. Assuming people are all bad actors because of a few bad apples is just bigotry.
I am talking about bribing back in the third world. You only need to bribe officials back in your country. Also, I am Italian so let me tell you that bribing, cheating, lying can get you pretty far in European life. In fact, that's the only way out of all the red tape and taxes. [Furthermore when the choice is between making a lot of money abroad or being poor in their own country people will cheat if they can get away with it - only someone who is not middle-class can see this easily, also being broke is not the same as being poor - you can be broke and middle-class. Whatever the case these people do not care one lick about Europe except about what they can get from it, they are no more loyal than colonialists to the peoples they have conquered, in fact, their incentives are the same.]
P.S. When I say I am Italian, I just mean I have a piece of paper which says I am a citizen of the REPVBLICA ITALIANA. Even though I was only born there and lived for eight years, see how easy it is to become a "citizen"?
God bless Europe for providing her pieces of paper to the huddled masses of the world.
Yes, but what can you not see that it constantly means less and less to be a citizen if people who can't even speak the language, or know the history can claim to be citizens? When it comes to a time to sacrifice their self-interest for the group it is going to be a hard sell.
There is pressure in most liberal societies to be sexually immodest though. The pressure is the other way in conservative societies.
Hmm I think it may look that way to people who come from countries where they are afraid to let women drive cars and show their faces.]
Well, then why do you want to let people from such countries into your one. Remember that when the Egyptians got a choice to elect someone they elected the Muslim Brotherhood. The Turks elected Erdogan. In Lybia too when they were given a choice they elected the Islamist party.[In response to,
We are a nation created by colonizers. Balkanizing us would create utter chaos and disaster. You could say the US was never justified in the first place - you might be right.
The United States is huge. There is plenty of space for multiple nations. Do you know how many times you can fit the UK in the US? Almost all nations were created by colonizers. Yet, they don't accept that they have no justification to exist because of it.
I mean that's a very relative statement. European countries have existed where they are with their relative populations for thousands of years - wars happened, but there was no wide spread colonization.
Have you heard of the Roman Empire? That sounds like widespread colonisation to me. Also after the Roman Empire fell, it was to other Germanic empires and kingdoms. Then came Charlemagne, The Holy Roman Empire, the Russian Empire, the German Empire.
France, England, Germany etc... were all created by tribes which subjugated other tribes to create larger kingdoms. That is colonialism.
Yeah and you are talking about history from like 1000 years ago - in the last few hundred years there hasn't been much colonialism other than what the European nation states did in the 18th and 19th centuries.
So what? Why apply a term like colonisation to just the last few hundred years if it has been happening for thousands of years? I know the United States has only been around for a few hundred years but that isn't good enough of a reason to ignore most of history.
I guess you just have never been to the Americas and you have never interacted with indigenous populations there - the New World is not the Old World. You people have been fighting wars for eons - America was mostly a continent of indigenous peoples up until 200 years ago.
Yeah, and the indigenous people in the Americas were fighting and conquering each other [for aeons] too, sometimes even after the Europeans came!
But again it isn't [real] colonialism because colonialism involves the takeover, and complete extirpation of an indigenous population with a technologically more advanced one.
By that definition what the British did in Sri Lanka was not colonialism because they didn't "extirpate" (i.e.eradicate or destroy completely) the indigenous population. Also, technology is power, it doesn't really matter how [as in by what means] the conquering is done,
I just feel like you do not understand what colonialism is - Africa is a great example of it - America and Africa are corollaries in this regard - Europe and Asia are not.
Colonialism is the conquest of land belonging to one tribe by another. This has happened between human populations since time immemorial.
That's just war - which is definitely pretty universal to all continents. Colonialism is something that requires completely different levels of development and those circumstances have been rather unique in history.
The Turks totally destroyed the Greek civilisation in what is now Turkey. Does it really matter that they didn't have access to guns lol. There are few Greeks left in Turkey today. What is so different from this and the British in India? I mean the Indians are still there, still?
Usually neighbors are relatively the same in technology - so they don't "colonize" each other - however if the suddenly gain the ability to travel long distances and possess technology the locals do not have - that's colonialism.
lol what so Ottomans did not colonize most of the Arab world because they were next to each other and it was a medieval affair? This all seems pretty arbitrary to me.
I mean you can point your finger to the point after all of the chaos, death, and destruction that follows Balkanization and say it was worth it - but I will just point to all of the chaos, death, and destruction.
Yeah, none of that chaos would have happened if Yugoslavia was not created by the great powers. Once the strong man dictator was gone, the instability of that artificial construct was revealed.
I however, prefer evolution to devolution. If it sucks, make it better through reason/logic/careful consideration of facts. Leave the dynamite at home.
Evolution in practice means centralisation of power into a small elite. Devolution inevitably leads to secession as it will lead to, in the UK. I mean the giving of powers by UK central Parliament to the regional Parliaments is literally called Devolution.
Yeah and yet Europe and America are at a level of relative peace never before seen in their respective history's. Kinda interesting don't you think?
Yeah, centralisation of power leads to stability and peace. The slave empires of antiquity were pretty stable too. This means that internal insurrections are rare. As for internal conflicts, most lands in Europe match the majority ethnic groups in European regions today, even in the Balkans.
There is less violence [in Europe] because modern weaponry such as nuclear weapons can only be wielded by the state, not small groups, so you don't see as many insurrections. Ironically the Sri Lankan civil war was ended by the ethnic majority preventing the ethnic minority from seceding [Or in other words the centralised state prevailing over the rebels who even with guerrilla warfare could not fight against the overwhelming power of the state - now that there is a winner there is peace at least].
Have you seen all the small states in Europe today? Most large ethnic populations in Europe have their own nations and there are no imperialist multi-ethnic dynasties left which want to recreate the Roman Empire. That is why it is peaceful. Also, America and NATO help too.
America is a lot more of a monoculture than Europe. That is why it has been peaceful despite being a large nation. [If it weren't for the large influx of migrants (which are an existential threat to the right) then the right and left would get along with each other. Imagine a world where racists and liberals get along with each other.]
Augustus' was not some liberal state. It's like saying the US was peaceful after the Americans had subdued all the red Indians. The Roman Empire achieved peace over the world through colonialism [and you know empire, the two go well together like bread and butter].
Augustus achieved power through war, but the relative peace and stability he created lasted for over 500 years. There was war - but for that time, it was definitely an important era for Roman history - literally called the Golden Age for a reason.
Yeah, it was certainly good for the Romans and perhaps good for the subjugated peoples of the Romans, well as good as the British Empire and PAX BRITANNICA were good for the people subjugated by the British Empire.
Modern Europe became peaceful only after all the major ethnic groups got their own nations in Europe, rather than being ruled over by some multi-ethnic empires dynasties of inbred royalty.
Yeah the hegemonic dynasties were definitely a problem. But the representative democracies that followed in their wake - through their literally destruction at the hands of Napoleon, have lead to peace on the continent.
Napoleon did quite a bit of harm too though. Killed many in the greatest wars Europe had seen by then, so it is kinda ironic to say he brought peace to Europe. He created what would become the German empire, ending the freedom of German city-states and leading to WWI and WWII. [Also it was democracy which elected Hitler which is a cheap shot but it still worth remembering.]
The German cities and states united because they were too weak against France, just as the Italians did ending the vibrant Italian city-states too. They have a higher "cohesion"(read: internal cultures turned into a monoculture) because they had to protect themselves from France.
The UK is pretty small but not so small it can't defend itself at all. Smaller states would find it harder not to be bullied around by larger ones, the UK can just barely afford to tbh. While in principle I am all for smaller states, there is a limit to how small they can be [and retain their independence].
Yeah and that arbitrary level of smallness is where we kind of disagree. I disagree with you central premise though. Peace and stability are achieved by ever greater and expanding unions of free people. Not through balkanized sub-units.
The reason sub-units can't have peace is because they are weaker than large units which constantly try to invade them. Germany and Italy were created because France invaded these states and the only way to defend themselves was to destroy violently destroy regional identities and unite into larger states. You can call this "peace" if you like but it is peace achieved through colonialism. As smaller minority identities were forcefully erased because of bullying by larger and more centralised states such as France.
European history is much messier to call it colonialism - which is the explicit takeover of an indigenous peoples by a much more technologically advanced civilization
The "technologically advanced" part seems to me to be redundant. What does "technologically advanced" mean? That the conquering culture is stronger, which in any case it would have to be do the conquering. The Romans, English etc... all came about by conquering other tribes.
It does not matter what we (NATO/the EU) call ourselves any more than it mattered what Soviet "satellite states" called themselves. We were and are in the American sphere of influence. Only with US's recent loss in influence has there been a slight move of policy independent from the US.
Yeah, you think it is easy to have an independent policy when you have a much larger and more powerful nation at your doorstep? Understand what it means to be a small relatively weaker nation next to a larger powerful nation or even in between two large powerful nations.
I guess you would like British to mean English than, but not even really - the Northern English hate the Southern English. And is Wales deserving of its own nation-state? Or do they not count because they were part of the Kingdom before the Union Jack was made?
They can all go their way as far as I am concerned. The issue would be that interference from Brussels would be inevitable and so these territories would not remain independent. I am all for small independent states, the problem is larger states can conquer them.
The UK is pretty small but not so small it can't defend itself at all. Smaller states would find it harder not to be bullied around by larger ones, the UK can just barely afford to tbh. While in principle I am all for smaller states, there is a limit to how small they can be.
Pax-Americana and now Pax-Europa are due to formation of stable political and economic unions - destroying them will only create chaos, destruction, and death. Literally for nothing
No, they are the result of American colonialism literally. Without the US navy controlling the seas, this peace would be gone in a day. The EU keepS Europe in America's sphere of interest and keeps Russia at bay.
The problem now is that due to the rise of China as a regional power Pax Americana is now under threat. (Also, Pax Europea is totally dependent on the US for defence against Russia). The same thing happened with Pax Britannica when the German state rose as Europe's ruler.
Yet neither the larger units or the smaller units have any of the essential qualities that you ascribe to them. They are literally just fictions you have invented.
Large units are more powerful than smaller units. It is as simple as that. What is powerful affects what is weak, especially when they are right next to each other, smaller weaker units cannot say no to any influence from larger more powerful units. Generally speaking of course.
WILL TRADE RACISTS FOR REFUGEES
Then just make/let the racists secede from the US lol. Simple as that.
They Tried already and we wicked their asses. :D
Then live with them.
Nah I'll ostracize them, make them feel uncomfortable, and if necessary send them abroad in exchange for refugees - preferably from Muslim countries.
I have also come to prefer conservative Muslims over liberals and given that Muslims have a higher birth rate than white racists and liberals, this might not be a bad thing after all. It's not going to be so good for the Jews though, at least this time they have their own nation.
You are acting as if you don't have any narratives about human rights and whatnot. Tell the Kurds that Balkanization is bad so they should not get their own state ever. To the Palestinians too.[In response to, Narratives into narratives into narratives into cynicism into hate into balkanization. I totally get you now dude.]
You seem to apply quite a different standard to my statements than to your own. Human rights are pretty essentialist if you asked me. So is Liberalism. I mean I could say that you are assuming that all peoples are essentially the same with the same interest. Pretty essentialist too. [In response to, But again with this essentialist speak. I don't get it - is this a conservative thing? Nuance for categories is impossible? Everything must have an essential quality to make sense of it?]
So what? Why apply a term like colonisation to just the last few hundred years if it has been happening for thousands of years? I know the United States has only been around for a few hundred years but that isn't good enough of a reason to ignore most of history. [In response to, Yeah and you are talking about history from like 1000 years ago - in the last few hundred years there hasn't been much colonialism other than what the European nation states did in the 18th and 19th centuries. ]
So what? The Romans had a lot more men, supplies, and weapons than their enemies did. The difference in technology is no more than a difference in power. You are making a distinction without a difference by calling it an "essentially" different breed. [In response to, Also what the Romans did was a bit different since the relative level of technology wasn't quite as overwhelming as what the Europeans did to the reset of the world in the 18th/19th centuries. You can call it colonialism - but it was a bit of a different breed]]
I mean the Romans totally destroyed Israel, exiling its population and massacring hundreds of thousands. Does it really matter that they didn't use guns and muskets as the Europeans did?
Unless you explain why it is so in common parlance this is just an appeal to authority/majority. My view is that there is a bias and a double-standard against the west for ideological reasons related to the west's role in capitalism. [In response to, "Define your words however you want - but that's not the common parlance or usage of that word. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloni…"
Yeah, but the only difference is one of power. Technology is power. [In response to, "War/conquest is war/conquest. Colonialism is takeover of indigenous populations with technology that the indigenous people do not possess."
You have overdosed on Orwell, my friend. I said no such thing. I only explained that it was not the European Union which has led to peace in Europe but modern weapons inhibiting revolutions of any kind and the borders of Europe along ethnic lines leading to stability. [In response to, "So peace is actually just war, and war is actually peace? Is that what you are saying?"]
I am just saying that colonialism always happened not that it should happen. To prevent Empire there should not be any large states with more influence than anyone another left, but this is unrealistic, sadly. Modern nation-states themselves were the result of empire building.
Also, the US is an Empire because no state may secede legally.
Europe is not the European Union. Britain is still in Europe geographically. If not then Napoleon would not have tried very hard to subdue Britain to form his liberal dynastic multi-ethnic European empire too. What exactly has the EU done to prevent war? Not that much.
The fact that you both have nukes help too. Though China will probably have hegemony in the seas around Asia. The US will slowly lose that without a fight. US manufacturing should continue declining too. Welcome to the service industry economy Murica. The war can be cold too.
Yeah but you still have more in common than the French and the British do. Also if it weren't for mass migration I don't think there would be a fight in America, the left would have just won. The left will win it anyway, that is inevitable with the demographics of the US.
Yeah, it's not going to be easy when there will be a large group of non-English speakers. Did you know you almost spoke German? How would that have affected WWI and WWII? Exactly you are an empire, not a group of independent states.
Indeed the island would not be united if it weren't for the British after all. The different ethnicities/religions have never liked each other. The nation has been made weak and poor by the ethnic and religious divisions. Makes you wonder if Balkanisation would have been better.
What you are advocating for is nobody getting what they want. Everyone will just get to celebrate a little bit of their culture, but never fully so as not to step on other peoples' toes. For example, the law (in Sri Lanka) allows Muslim men to have 4 wives. The Buddhists don't like this.
The [Sinhala] majority has essentially forced a political union because they know that a divided balkanised Sri Lanka will be easy pickings for larger states like India, China, and the United States. The majority is losing its majority status by a few percentage points year by year due to higher birthrates in the ethnic minorities. And so power is slowly going from the majority to minorities slowly changing the face of Sri Lanka into something the majority finds foreign.
Meanwhile, the ethnic minorities are on a birth rate competition to outbreed and outnumber the majority. Needless to say, the majority does not like this. It is because I have seen full-scale multicultural failure in my countrymen that I fear for Britain, Europe, and America.
If you can break your identity so can your enemies. The more abstract the unity of the state is, the weaker it becomes. This is why stuff like a common religion, ethnicity, etc... can be useful. This is the purpose of the US public school system, not education.
What matters is that the expression of one group comes at the expense of another. There is always a bargain but as the differences between groups are higher so too are what they have to give up to live with each other. The state teaches children they are the same but not family.
Categories of people are concepts too. There are books about them too. I do not see a group per se but interests, people who have similar interests have a tendency to band together. Factions are a reality I have come to accept, I don't like it, but there is power in numbers.[In response to, "my categories are about concepts - yours are about groups of people. I find that interesting - like I do not see a group of people as one thing, yet you do. I see a definition of a word that's in a book as one thing, which it demonstrably is"]
Yeah, but they have different interests otherwise they wouldn't need to organize into factions to try and get their way over other groups, who are people too. "No man fights freedom; he fights at most the freedom of others." - Karl Marx. [In response to, " Black people are people too - trans people are people too. "]
To be a citizen means to enjoy certain privileges like the investments of your ancestors, in exchange for certain responsibilities, like the draft. What is language? Culture? The reason most nations exist. Liberalism is a culture. Hitler was human and so are you, a bit different. [In response to, "What does it mean to be a citizen of anything? What is language? What is culture? Are we not all human?"]
Well, the US was founded by a bunch of tax-evading mercantilist puritans, but those who founded what you are benefiting from certainly did have allegiances. Most European states are along linguistic lines. And the English language does unite your nation. [In response to "I do not have an allegiance to any language, culture, ethnicity, or nation that is an essentialist part of my identity."]
Also, look at all the conflict that a lack of a single ethnicity in the US has led to? More people died in your civil war rather all the other American wars. The lack of religious unity in Europe is what led many to go to the US in the first place. This is your American identity.
Funny, that you say that given that most Asians (East Asians, South Asians etc.. in Asia anyway) are obsessed with the fairness of skin and find it aesthetically pleasing. Looks like I have come across another cultural difference. They do add up into something quite substantial. [In response to, "A browner more diverse UK sounds like a nice UK. Brits are pasty as fuck."
You will find that Korea has been quite substantially Americanized. That's why you were there anyway, to teach the language of Americans. So many old people there feel like they live in a foreign country which has totally changed which probably explains some of the suicide rates.
Yeah I know, I find a lack of conflict boring too. A peaceful society can be pretty boring too. But it is peaceful. And stable. You can't have your cake and eat it too. A society with people with actually, non-superficially different views is a powder keg. [In response to, "That's a pretty weird way to look at it - I tend to prefer people from disparate backgrounds, different views, and different preferences. Same ol' same ol' is boring to me"]
Could it be because Koreans are a more collectivist culture (as many less diverse groups tend to be) and because Americans are a more individualistic culture? [In response to, "Koreans treated me better than most Americans do sadly."]
Well, your narratives about human rights have affected the world greatly for the better and for the worse. So I don't quite see what the difference is in terms of importance - it's not like your narrative is about Yu Gi Oh cards or something unimportant lol. [In response to, "I have narratives about human rights - but you have narratives about whole groups of people like the Kurds" implying that narratives about the human race in general, are necessarily more true than narratives about groups of human beings.]
Should the Kurds have their own nation or not? That is my question. I mean there are many kinds of Palestinians too - Muslim Palestinians, Christian Palestinians and even some Jewish ones. Can you understand why even though they could just become Israeli they would be a minority?[In response to, "I see the PKK in the Kurds. I see radical Kurds. I see Iraqi Kurds. I see Iranian Kurds."What I am implying here is that this is what the left is offering to Europeans all over the world, to be a minority in a nation and that naturally, people don't like to be the minority because there is safety, continuity, and security in numbers.]
But you can exchange ideas and goods without bringing in new people. Japan westernised pretty quickly without having to turn 10% or more of their population into European people. Clearly, ideas can and do cross borders without great masses of people. [In response to "Because diversity brings new ways of thinking and even people who live in countries with oppressive systems come with unique and valuable insights about how the world works and can contribute to society", implying immigrants are not pressured to integrate into the ways and thinking of European liberal democracy thus emptying their cultures to empty shells if they choose to submit to the west.]
Some of the people doing the demonizing may come over too following the demonized. The demonised will then continue to be demonised. Also, liberal democracies demonise people too. Remember Edward Snowden and Julian Assange? Where did Snowden have to run off to? [I tried in vain to explain that by mass importing those who are persecuted abroad you are also going to end up bringing over the persecutors as well.]
It depends on if actually having a modest society is your goal. If it is your goal then it is a net good. Clearly, if people are free then they will choose the easier path of not being modest, thus you would have a less modest society, which would be a net loss, for that goal. [In response to "locking women up and forcing them to be modest is not actually creating a net good in the world. Women in the west are free to choose what they want. They have human rights."]
Some retarded autistic discussion about the definition of colonialism
Yeah, they [the British] appointed an ethnic minority to a ruling position [in Sri Lanka/Ceylon]. The ethnic majority hated this, obviously. Sri Lanka was not united before the British came btw. The Tamils had formed their own nation in the North, in the land they had taken from the majority
Most of the deaths [in native Indian populations in North America] were due to diseases from the old world indigenous populations had no immunity against, rather than a government policy of genocide [As he was implying]. Either way, I guess immigration didn't turn out so good for the indigenous population.
Transition, makes it sound peaceful. It was greek for quite a while, and it was not Turkish before that. Only Britain's partition of India reached that scale. Also if by genocide you mean the Bengal famine, it is a bit more complicated than that. [In response to, "I dunno if you can characterize the transition of Constantinople to Istanbul as a genocide of Greek culture - I call it a transition. Also, the region wasn't Greek before the Greeks themselves started sending out ships to take over far off lands.", of course he wouldn't call it a "transition" if we were talking about Europeans replacing native Indians, no that would be "genocide" of course.]
At what point exactly does the land belong to a people? Are you saying it doesn't belong to the Turks today? That was an invasion. Normal sure, colonialism is normal. [In reposnse to, "The land was never really Greek in the first place - my Greek friends will hate me for saying that, but that was more of a normal exchange of cultures and history. Not really colonialism at all." implying that because something is normal then it must be good,]
Well if what you call colonialism isn't any worse or better than run of the mill conquest then what is the point of making the distinction?
I am pretty sure the Ottomans were there for the resources not for sightseeing. Rome certainly needed grain constantly from North Africa. [Responding to, "Why colonialism specifically refers to the settlement, takeover, and exploitation of land usually far away from your normal sphere of influence - usually you don't care what happens in those lands, you come for the booty and then you get out.", implying Europeans didn't settle in Aus, America, NZ, SA, Arg, etc...]
They constantly raided the Balkans, they must have gotten something. Also they did get some young men for their armies too. The British did not settle in India or Sri Lanka in large numbers and the Romans sent romans to rule over regions of their empire just as the Brits did. [Responding to "I know the Ottomans abused the shit out of the Balkans, but would you call them overtly exploitative for the purposes of resource extraction or settling just to settle?", implying the ottomans didn't do both.]
By your definition, only the US, Canada, South Africa, some south American states, Australia and NZ are colonialism because there were settlers rather than just rulers. [In response to "Napoleon was a conqueror, not a colonialist. He did what the Ottomans did to Europe", also it seems he has forgotten the Greeks settling all over the Mediterranean and even the black sea.]
I already explained why I don't believe tech matters. The rest is all true for the Romans, Franks etc... Pretty standard conquest type of stuff. [In response to the definition of colonialism as "a form of conquest that involves exploitation of far distant lands, with technologically inferior peoples, the subversion of local customs with colonial authorities, the extraction of resources, etc."]
Sounds pretty Roman to me. Most empires treated their subject people as inferiors. Until the people conquered by Rome were sufficiently Latinised they were not treated as Roman citizens either.[In response to "We take what you have because we are superior to you - our might says what you have is ours. Give it to us now, or die." - implying that there is something special, and especially evil about modern European conquest as opposed to other conquests in history.]
So what Belgium's king did in the Congo, was not colonialism? [In response to "We call that colonialism because it is descriptive of particular behavior that we now rightly view as egregious. It isn't just conquest because of some king's crazy fever dream. It is resource extraction on the basis of racial superiority."]
The Romans thought they were civilising the people they conquered. The Spartans thought that the Helots they ruled over were inferior to them. The Sinhala majority frequently regards the Tamil minority as inferior too. Racism and conquest have always worked together. [There is nothing special about 18th-century European conquest just because you use a word for it like "colonisation" that doesn't make it any worse or better.]
Yeah, but what I am saying is that difference in power doesn't have to be due to technology. It could be due to numbers, morale, tactics, terrain, supplies etc... Whatever the reason it is just a difference in power.
Wherever the ethnic divisions have still not being made into nations there is still instability and conflict. The Balkans is the greatest example of this. Ukraine another. Europe is the smallest continent after Aus and yet look at into how many small states it is divided into.
Yeah, and of course those states want to secede from their nation-states often. Ever heard of Catalonia. That is what I am saying, that those nations themselves were created by destroying smaller units. You would need to further destroy them and the nations themselves for the EU.
Why should every division be destroyed to turn Europe into some sort of bootleg version of America? Every division should be considered separately of course though I would argue that more local national authorities are more effective and productive.
American weapons do - because they are what shields Europe from invasion. It's not the 18th century when muskets could be easily acquired by revolutionaries of any kind to overthrow any regime, that is what I meant, that there is no possibility of internal insurrections
Money would still flow in Europe without the Eurozone. As it did before the Eurozone. Money did flow even before the first world war and the second too. Therefore it cannot be the cause for peace in Europe.
Larger unions dilute minority cultures to their most superficial aspects like costumes. They also centralise power in the central government on all the most important matters. They are less democratic as your vote counts less when there are more interest groups.
The Balkans are in Europe. Being forced to work together didn't work their either. Why do you think Europe is special? It isn't.
Not really. You are taking away the power from the people and handing it over to some rich university-educated bureaucrats in Brussels. There has always been trade in Europe that did not prevent war, nor is it preventing war now.
Independence and democracy are not cheap. [In response to gloating about the UK's economic losses by leaving the EU]
The Napoleonic code is inferior to Common Law used in Britain and America. This is because Common Law works on the principle of precedent building the law from the bottom up whereas the Napoleonic Code on the continent is a top to the bottom system.
Britain didn't need Napoleon to get rid of Feudalism. If Britain had not defeated Napoleon then Napoleon would have set up his own dynasty to rule over Europe. Napoleon led to the creation of Germany and so to WWI and WWII. He also committed atrocities in Spain.
At a certain point, it is a numbers and proximity game. Also, I have some doubts about the US economy being able to sustain current military spending. Europe is hopeless - they are too poor to invest in arms when there is no growth. The Chine might poach just enough.
China has pretty deep pockets though. They have pretty much bought out Sri Lanka and several other countries. Internationally they are bound to get support from their economically dependent client states.
Progressive, it will be. A utopia, I am not so sure. People are not just economic units that you can move around predictably. Who knows, it might even work if the people are not so open-minded that their brains fall out. Some Chinese style social credit system could work.
lol most of the non-Han regions have been turned to majority Han Chinese thanks to CCP policy. As for democracy, I can only see it if Xi becomes a fascist dictator and then when he is old steps down like Pinochet. The good thing about fascists is that in peace they step down.
Well, we did literally right click and undo the USSR. They [the Russians] did anyway. If anything the Soviet Union acted as a conservative force by slowing technical progress to an extent it retarded social progress. This is why the countries which were under the iron curtain are more socially conservative than those that were not.
Poland is alright, for now. Still better than under the iron curtain. Belarus is an identity-less socialist dictatorship with a dictator who pretends the soviet union is still around to make up for the lack of culture for his country. Still better off than under the iron curtain.
lol Hungary is alright. The current party won't stay in power forever and anyway they are totally dependent on Germany. There is nothing they can do. What's wrong with Hungary anyway lol. That they won't give Soros' school public money?
You do not know the extent of poverty in these nations before the collapse of the soviet union then. It was very harsh right after its fall because it was unsustainable but it has been worth it, in Europe anyway. It was the delayed collapse of the Russian empire and the serfdom which sustained it.
The island [Sri Lanka] was not one unified until before the British, and indeed even before the Portuguese came. Of course, putting minorities in charge of majorities is going to inflame tensions. The island would have been better off remaining under British rule.
Nothing is essentialist but you are just increasing the chances of it happening carelessly.
In NI, it was a side loyal to the UK and the other to ROI. The fighting mostly happened in the 80s. The UK essentially abandoned those loyal to the UK in NI. NI will soon secede from the UK due to demographic changes.
The reason for it has got nothing to do with the EU, but with birth rates. The mostly pro-ROI Catholics have a birth rate higher than the most pro-UK Protestants. At one point Protestants outnumbered Catholics 2:1. Some catholic teachings against contraception also helped.
They did that. It was massively unpopular. The pro-Sinhala party won again with a massive majority.
You say that but a lot of people are terribly worried about having quotas for political office, be they based on gender or race. The worst thing that this kind of multiculturalism can lead can be seen in Lebanon where the president can only be a Christian for example.
Identity is mostly just a way to divide an conquer. I honestly don't understand it. I genuinely consider myself "Cultureless." Lol
No, identity is a way to unite, to inspire loyalty. I don't have an identity or a culture either but I see its use.
By the way, even though I said am a catholic, I mostly an agnostic atheist. The only reason I mentioned it is that since Catholics are a minority it forms a part of the identity of those born into Catholicism there. The Churches are always full on Sunday mass unlike in Italy.
No, I don't care one bit about what happens to that country. I wasn't born there. Also, I am a Roman Catholic, a minority there. As long as the prices of the property I own there goes up, I am happy. I am against the pro-Sinhalese party because it is socialist.
I am an individual first. A human second. That's about it.
You are also an American. Drafted, if male. You are also a Liberal. And part of the academic establishment.
My culture is humanity.
Humanism is an ideological movement mostly started in the west. So yeah your culture is western.
Yeah probably - humans are interesting though, I think a lot of our Old World bickering is pretty reconcilable stuff, we just choose to make it irreconcilable.
Not really. There is a limited amount of resources such as land, and people. Therefore a lot of conflicts of interest are pretty much a zero-sum game. Don't insult other people's intelligence. If it was so easy then they would have sorted it out themselves without your help.
Like the choice to say no to a solution is conscious. People want the conflict, they want the anger. That's really it.
There are many solutions. Everyone prefers the solution that benefits them best. Usually, the weakest member's interests are excluded from the solution. Is it any surprise people often say no? Usually, it is those with the upper hand who are eager to go to the negotiation table because they will get what they want from the weaker party.
If identity is the problem - change the identity. Genes and culture are not the full sum of our being on this planet. We can break out, be free, redefine ourselves along new lines. Go to the moon
You can do that but don't expect that the other side will do the same for you. At some point, you have to accept that they have a different interest than yours and bargain with them rather than dogmatically expect they will change themselves for you.
You can learn about your brothers and sisters. :D And what makes them happy and sad. And try to express that to them in a way that indicates mutual dignity is your primary concern.
What they[Tamils in Ceylon who want an independent state] want is not anything as paltry as my primary concern but territory and independence. They are not wrong to want this; But the reality is it will come at another group's expense if they can get it.
If your categories miss the open minded people who want a better way - is that truly a valid category?
If by open-minded you mean partial to the other side in the conflict then this account still accounts for them by simply counting them on the other side. Lenin may or may not have called them useful idiots.
History can be pretty bigoted too, unfortunately. You will agree with that at least.